Re: OT: Trans Day of Visibility 2025 AMA

On Thu, 03 Apr 2025 04:54:46 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:

On Wed, 02 Apr 2025 09:08:02 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
>

On Wed, 02 Apr 2025 06:28:43 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
>

On Tue, 01 Apr 2025 09:44:02 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
>

On Tue, 01 Apr 2025 04:58:31 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
>

On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 17:51:34 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:
>

On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 13:34:39 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>:
>

On 2025-03-31 11:38 a.m., Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

On 2025-03-31 16:19:18 +0000, Bob Casanova said:
 

On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 08:04:13 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
>

On 3/30/25 7:00 PM, Kestrel Clayton wrote:

>
The last day of March is the Transgender Day of Visibility, a day to
improve awareness of transgender people, to draw attention to the
challenges and oppression we face, and help people understand us
better.
The TDoV is more important than ever in 2025, as the Trump
Administration has put us squarely in its target sights.
>
One of the ways I can fight for my existence, and that of several of my
friends and loved ones, is by being visible as myself, answering
questions, and demystifying trans people.
>
I am a transgender woman. I am visible. Ask me anything.
>

Intending no disrespect, I'm sympathetic to anyone with gender
dysphoria.  It's probably a conclusion that you and others have reached
only after some serious introspection.  That's your business, not mine,
and doesn't disturb me in the slightest.  I do object to biological
males competing in women's sports, and I think it's a very bad idea for
minors to do anything irrevocable before their brains are at least
soft-boiled.
>

Agreed. All.

 
Agreed. All.
 
 

Sort of agreed, but re: sports, how exactly do you define 'biological
male' and how would you plan to enforce it? And yes, it is a bad idea
for minors to do anything irrevocable. The cases I know of are in late
adolescence with a long history of really knowing what they want and
decisions made by doctor/parent in cases of infants with ambiguous or
damaged genitalia. I'm okay with the first but dead against the second.
>

The issue is regarding the difference between biological
males (generally XY) and biological females (generally XX)
in upper-body strength after puberty; if it weren't a
problem such athletes as "Lia" Thomas wouldn't go from
underperforming in men's sports to record breakers in female
sports, and the records would be comparable between males
and females. But they aren't. Titlele IX was passed for a
reason. If you have no interest in fair competition, fine,
but at least recognize that there *is* a difference.

>
>
As I pointed out the last time this was raised on T.O., it's not as
simple as looking at the genes.  The important difference for physical
development is not in the genes, but in the individual physical
responses to the sex hormones.
>

Which is why I was careful to specify "after puberty", which
is when the difference kicks in.

>
>
Only if you focus exclusively on the majority.  Once again, the
problem isn't about the majority, but instead is about those whose
particular physiologies don't follow the majority pattern, and for
that reason only, are having their human rights threatened.
>
>

There are some individuals whose
bodies simply don't respond to them, and so develop as physically
female even though they are genetically XY.  Your argument above
discriminates against them, one of the problems with simplistic
solutions.
>

There are indeed such individuals. Any data on their
percentage of the population, which I suspect is quite low?
I've read numbers in the 50k range for the US, but I'm open
to correction.

>
>
Since you think it relevant, I'm sure you can look it up.  The
specific amount isn't relevant to the fact these people exist.  Some
people like to grab easy headlines by demanding that the rights of
transgender people be dismissed and legislated away on the basis of a
Biblical understanding of biological facts.
>
>

My argument is that for the overwhelming majority,
competition within sex is the better course if fairness is a
concern. The (suspected) extreme minority you note can be
handled on a case-by-case basis.

>
>
Incorrect.  Your expressed solution, based on XY sex assignment,
>

Nope. read it again.

>
>
<sigh> To refresh your convenient amnesia, the following are your
comments from the quoted text above:
***********************************************
The issue is regarding the difference between biological
males (generally XY) and biological females (generally XX)
************************************************
>
>

ignores the individuals I described above.  In fact, your expressed
solution, ignores the actual problem, of the majority denying the
human rights of a minority out of prejudice. Not sure how you think
that's "fair". 
>

It's not prejudice, and I was referring to those individuals
who express differently despite their genetics.

>
>
<double sigh>  To refresh your convenient amnesia, the following are
your comments from the quoted text above:
********************************************
if it weren't a
problem such athletes as "Lia" Thomas wouldn't go from
underperforming in men's sports to record breakers in female
sports,
*********************************************
>
Trump's ban specifically limits Title IX competition to "biological
females" aka those with the "correct" XX genes.  That is YOUR
expressed solution.  YOUR solution unnecessarily and irrationally
eliminates from competition those individuals as I described. 
>
>

But since
I'm sure you don't understand, even though I clearly stated
it, that any further discussion would be futile.

>
>
Clearly you know yourself well enough.  I have no doubt you will
continue to lie about what you and I posted, as usual.
>

Nope. Your continuing willful refusal to comprehend what I
wrote, cherry-picking particular phrases while ignoring the
context and full content, shows you are only interested in
trolling and "gotcha" points. So I won't be responding to
you on this or any other subject. Have A Nice Life.

>

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
 the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov